The religious change of the English Reformation is most clearly expressed in a liturgical, rather than a doctrinal form (Crockett, 1988: 273). This does not mean however, that doctrinal matters remained unconsidered in the English Reformation, nor does it mean that the theology of the Eucharist, especially relating to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist, was without tensions. Cranmer’s Defence and Answer serve the purpose of a doctrinal commentary on the theology of the Eucharist expressed in the two liturgical products, that is, the 1549 and the 1552 BCP, which were principally the work of Thomas Cranmer.

The Eucharist in the 1549 BCP adhered to the pattern of the Mass in the Sarum Missal (Brooks, 1965: 72), although it was reduced in size and complexity (Cuming, 1982: 51). The title of the service was ‘The Supper of the Lord and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass’ (Ketley, 1844: 76) and suggested that the Mass was one of its main sources, besides other Reformed models. The title, ‘The Supper of the Lord’ probably derived from Hermann’s liturgy of 1545 called A Simple and Religious Consultation in the English version of 1547, since Hermann used this title (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 219). The name ‘The Holy Communion’ was a vernacular name used for the Eucharist and would have been well known to all (Cuming, 1982: 52). This seems to indicate that the Eucharist of the 1549 BCP had both traditional Catholic and Reformed sources. Some elements of the 1549 Eucharist seemed original, such as ‘Christ, our paschal Lamb’ after the Lord’s Prayer and the Peace (Ketley, 1844: 90), the Prayer for the King (Ketley, 1844: 77-78) and the Prayer of Thanksgiving following Communion (Ketley, 1844: 94-95).

The fact that the Canon survived in its traditional form indicates a great deal about Cranmer’s theology of the Eucharist. All the continental Reformers removed it from their eucharistic liturgies (Cuming, 1982: 54) and replaced it with the Words of Institution taken from the biblical record and read before receiving Communion (Cuming, 1982: 55). Cranmer on the other hand, follows the pattern of the Canon of the Sarum Missal, with significant changes of words and phrases, but maintaining the same sections of the Canon. A comparison of the Sarum Canon (Sarum Missal, 1989: 14-17) with the 1549 BCP Canon (Ketley, 1844: 85-89) shows the similarity in wording and shape. Cranmer seems to preserve the traditional shape whilst at the same time changing words and phrases to reflect Reformed theology (Brooks, 1965: 75). The 1549 Canon contains a Preface and Sanctus, an invocation of the saints, an epiclesis and the signing of the elements “to bless and sanctify these thy gifts” (Ketley, 1844: 88) and an anamnesis. The epiclesis prays that “these thy gifts, and creatures of bread and wine … may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ” (Ketley, 1844: 88). The words ‘be unto us’ suggest a realist identification between the bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood although Cranmer himself denies this realist intention (see Answer, edn. Cox, 1844: 271). Significantly however this wording varies from the Canon of the Sarum Missal which prays in a more realist sense that the bread and wine “may become to us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ” (Sarum Missal, 1989: 15). The difference between ‘be’ in the 1549 Canon and ‘become’ in the Sarum Missal is significant. Whereas ‘become’ suggests a change in nature or substance, ‘be’ does not so clearly or necessarily suggest this. The 1549 Canon goes on to say, in an ambiguous fashion, that it is by ‘partaking’ of this Holy Communion, note not the bread and wine but the Holy Communion, that the body and blood of Christ is received (Ketley, 1844: 89). For Cranmer the partaking was the important aspect not any ‘becoming’ or changing of the substance of the bread and wine.

The first page of the Eucharist from The Book of Common Prayer, 1549, showing the introductory rubrics.

The first page of the Eucharist from The Book of Common Prayer, 1549,

showing the introductory rubrics.

Cranmer in his works Defence and Answer (see Case Study 1.1) seems to express a nominalist theology in relation to the Eucharist, the bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood, in that bread and wine are on earth and Christ’s body and blood are in heaven – both being self-enclosed entities. Cranmer does however, express a realist theology in relation to the ministration (the partaking) and as regards the faithful communicant. Christ is really present in the ministration and the faithful communicant but not in the bread and wine. Any realist understanding here in relation to the bread and wine seems unlikely when the theology expressed in the Defence and Answer is considered and when it is realised that the words ‘be unto us’ were entirely removed in the 1552 BCP, thereby avoiding any possible realist interpretation.

The traditional nature of the Eucharist in the 1549 BCP is however affirmed by the rubrics which order vestments, wafer bread and choral elements, such as the Benedictus and Agnus Dei.

When Cranmer speaks of offering in the 1549 BCP it was the prayers that were offered and not the gifts (“We humbly beseech thee most mercifully to receive our prayers, which we offer unto thy divine Majesty”) (Ketley, 1844: 87). It was these ‘prayers and supplications’ that were to be borne by the holy Angels and brought before God (Ketley, 1844: 89), not the gifts of bread and wine, as the Sarum Missal directed (Sarum Missal, 1989: 16). At the end of the Canon, the Sacrifice is spoken of in terms of “our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” (Ketley, 1844: 89) lessening the idea of any offering of the sacrifice in relation to the gifts of bread and wine. This is despite the fact that earlier in the same section of the Canon the celebration and the memorial of Christ is made “with these thy holy gifts” (Ketley, 1844: 89). Clearly the sacrifice of the Mass is lessened in the 1549 Canon, with the word ‘oblation’ being qualified as ‘once offered’ (Ketley, 1844: 88), but not eliminated entirely.

Some have argued that the 1549 Eucharist was a transitional position and that a fuller revision was to be made when the time was considered right (Cuming, 1982: 57 and Crockett, 1988: 273). For this reason it has also been argued that Cranmer did not intend to express any one doctrinal position in the 1549 Eucharist and therefore deliberately left it ambiguous in order to ensure its acceptance by all parties in the short term (Cuming, 1982: 57). Cranmer’s caution, it has been argued, was both a clever concealment of a theological revolution in a conservative liturgical form and an attempt to satisfy both the conservatives and the radicals (Brooks, 1965: 75). The prayer asking that the bread and wine ‘be unto us’ the body and blood of Christ and the idea that the celebration was made with the gifts, suggest that the traditional structure remained in the 1549 Eucharist (Ketley, 1844: 88-89). Cranmer’s mature reflection on the Eucharist and theology of the presence and sacrifice of Christ seems however more fully expressed and more radically in his Defence and Answer (see Case Study 1.1). It is here that Cranmer denies any presence of Christ in the bread and wine and any change in the substance of the bread and wine. He affirms only a spiritual and heavenly presence in the ministration and in the communicant, known by faith alone. It is here also that he denies any oblation in the Eucharist other than the offering of self and the offering of praise and thanksgiving (see the analysis of the Defence and Answer in Case Study 1.1,where this is discussed and documented more fully). In the 1549 Canon, the theology of the Eucharist seems to be less clear cut than the theology of the Eucharist expressed in the Defence and Answer and indeed at times it seems to be quite ambiguous. Whether this was intentional or not on the part of Cranmer remains part of the mystery surrounding his views on the Eucharist and his plans for reformation. This situation of uncertainty changed greatly with the publication of the 1552 BCP.

Part of the Prayer of Consecration from the Eucharist in The Book of Common Prayer, 1549. Note the black crosses at the epiclesis, indicating the crossing action of the priest over the bread and wine.

The 1552 Eucharist is much more drastic in the revision of the Sarum material. The Canon is broken up, with the intercessions being placed earlier in the service, after the Offertory, so there could be no suggestion of a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead by associating the prayers for them with the central action of the Eucharist. The final part of the Canon following the Institution Narrative was placed after the reception of Communion as an alternative to the prayer after Communion in the 1549 Eucharist. Any idea of oblation in relation to the bread and wine was thereby removed from the prayer of consecration, with any references to an offering concerning only the communicant’s self and praise and thanksgiving, after the bread and wine had been received. This meant that any idea of offering was less likely to be associated with the gifts and the central action of the Eucharist. The central action therefore became the recitation of the prayer containing the Institution Narrative with the bread and wine being consumed immediately after this prayer was finished to lessen any chance of adoration before the consecrated elements. The absence of an ‘Amen’ at the end of this prayer suggests that the central action of the Eucharist includes the reception of the bread and wine (Ketley, 1844: 279). It was faithful, spiritual and heavenly reception that Cranmer emphasised in both the Defence and Answer and this was therefore echoed in the design of the 1552 Eucharist. The appropriate response to the spiritual and heavenly reception was praise and thanksgiving using one of the two alternative prayers. The Gloria was also moved from the beginning of the service to the end to encourage this idea of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving (Cuming, 1982: 78). The material placed after the 1549 Canon (Lord’s Prayer, Christ our paschal Lamb, You that do truly, Confession, Absolution, Comfortable Words, We do not presume) was also moved to a place earlier in the service or deleted so that there was no separation of the Institution Narrative from the Communion. This lessened any suggestion of eucharistic adoration since the bread and wine did not remain on the altar for any length of time while prayers were said, and before they were consumed, as had been the case in the 1549 Eucharist. This meant that there was little opportunity for the bread and wine to be used as an object of devotion or adoration.

Title Page of The Book of Common Prayer, 1552.

The Title Page from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer

The 1552 Eucharist also included further Reformed material, such as the placing of the Ten Commandments at the beginning of the service and the rewording of the Kyrie Eleison after each commandment, with the final response being borrowed from services originally used at Strasbourg (Cuming, 1982: 78).

Doctrinal changes were signalled by the change in language. The invocation of the saints disappeared in the Prayer for the Church in the 1552 BCP, with the added words “militant here in earth” (Ketley, 1844: 270) clearly indicating that the prayer was for the living of the earth and not for the dead or the saints. The changed words of administration in 1552 lessened any idea of a real presence by deleting the words, “The body/blood of Christ …” (Ketley, 1844: 92) and substituting, “Take and eat this/Drink this …” (Ketley, 1844: 279). There was therefore no association of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ and no clear identification of what ‘this’ was that was being taken and eaten or drunk. The theology expressed in the Defence and Answer seems to suggest that the ‘this’ refers to the sacramental bread and wine alone, unchanged in any way, and not to the body and blood of Christ, which could only be consumed in a heavenly and spiritual manner. The wording of the words of administration therefore suggests that the bread and wine were eaten/drunk as an act of remembrance, with the real feeding on the body and blood of Christ occurring in a spiritual and heavenly manner, by faith alone. The 1549 Canon had prayed that the bread and wine “may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved son Jesus Christ” (Ketley, 1844: 88). This was altered in the 1552 Eucharist so that it became “may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood” (Ketley, 1844: 279), eliminating any suggestion of a change in the bread and wine or any identification of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. This also meant that the 1552 Eucharist emphasised ‘partaking’ as the essential action of the Eucharist, in line with the theology expressed in the Defence and Answer. The epiclesis itself was removed in the 1552 Eucharist and the bread and wine were no longer blessed and sanctified as was the case in the 1549 Eucharist. This lessened any suggestion of a change in the bread and wine, such that they became the body and blood of Christ. The anamnesis disappeared and the Benedictus and Agnus Dei were also removed in the 1552 service. It is argued that these last two deletions removed any suggestion of a real or physical presence (Cuming, 1982: 79) and presented a theology of the Eucharist which saw eating and drinking in thankful remembrance of Christ’s death as the most likely interpretation (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 244). An emphasis on right receiving also appears in the 1552 Eucharist in the Prayer of Thanksgiving after Communion. Instead of the 1549 words which said, “hast vouchsafed to feed us in these holy mysteries” (Ketley, 1844: 94), the 1552 Prayer of Thanksgiving becomes, “dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries” (Ketley, 1844: 280). The receiving is now seen as less objective and more dependent upon the fact that Christ’s body and blood is now ‘duly received’. The prayer became one seeking fruitful reception (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 245) rather than one suggesting any real presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

A rubric at the end of the 1552 service also specified that no adoration was meant toward the bread and wine by kneeling (see Case Study 1.15 for a fuller discussion of this so called Black Rubric). The 1552 service said there was no ‘real and essential’ presence of Christ in the sacrament and there was no change in the substance of the bread and wine (Ketley, 1844: 283). It has been argued that Cranmer strongly objected to the insertion of this rubric, known as the Black Rubric, in the 1552 BCP (MacCulloch, 1996: 525-530), however Cranmer’s theology of the Eucharist, as expressed in the Defence and Answer, does not appear to disagree with the theological position of the rubric. Another rubric in the 1552 service, which ordered that remaining bread and wine could be used by the curate for his own personal use, suggested that the sacred use of the elements was restricted to their sacramental use (the ministration and faithful reception), with no lasting presence or sacred quality remaining once the elements had been consumed and the service had ended (Ketley, 1844: 283).

Ceremonial features were greatly reduced in the 1552 Eucharist. The title ‘Mass’ was removed, eucharistic vestments were abolished, singing was limited, the manual acts, where the priest takes the bread and cup in his hands were abolished and ordinary bread was ordered in place of wafer bread. The surface features of the 1552 Eucharist were deliberately intended to have less resemblance to the traditional form of the 1549 Eucharist and the pre-Reformation missals. At the same time the 1552 changes brought the English eucharistic liturgy more closely in line with Reformed models and practice.

Cranmer’s liturgical revisions in the 1552 Eucharist were certainly more in the Reformed direction than the 1549 Eucharist had allowed. His intention was to simplify the service, to remove doubtful ceremonies and any ambiguities, which some had argued were present in the 1549 Eucharist (e.g. Bucer in his Censura of the 1549 BCP). There was no longer any possibility of understanding the theology of the Eucharist in any other way than Cranmer’s third and radical fashion (Brooks, 1965: 109) where no real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was associated with the bread and wine. Despite this, Cranmer’s intentions did not seem to go as far as some of the other Reformers. He still wanted a daily Eucharist, whereas many other Reformers ordered a much less frequent celebration (e.g. Zwingli thought that quarterly was sufficient). Cranmer also viewed the sacraments as “effectual signs of grace”, even though he refused to acknowledge any real presence of Christ in the bread and wine and any notion of eucharistic sacrifice other than that of self and praise and thanksgiving (Jasper and Cuming, 1987: 245).

Cranmer’s theology of the Eucharist seems to be most clearly worked out in a propositional and polemical manner in his Defence and Answer (see Case Study 1.1). In the Eucharistic liturgies contained in the two editions of the Book of Common Prayer, published in 1549 and 1552, Cranmer expresses this theology in a liturgical form. The ambiguity in relation to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist and the traditional character and shape of the 1549 Eucharist, was to a great degree modified in the 1552 Eucharist, so that the Eucharist more closely resembled Reformed models and practice, such that there was now no suggestion of a real presence of Christ in the elements or any concept of oblation in the Eucharist, in either a moderate or immoderate realist sense.